Talk:Iwane Matsui/GA1: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
CurtisNaito (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 02:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC) |
::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 02:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::No actual evidence was ever provided in that discussion that I did not read the sources correctly. You were making accusations but not providing any proof for them.[[User:CurtisNaito|CurtisNaito]] ([[User talk:CurtisNaito|talk]]) 02:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC) |
:::No actual evidence was ever provided in that discussion that I did not read the sources correctly. You were making accusations but not providing any proof for them.[[User:CurtisNaito|CurtisNaito]] ([[User talk:CurtisNaito|talk]]) 02:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::Thanks for linking to the ANI thread which, if nothing else, shows that you two have a lot of bad blood between you, which greatly complicates my ability to assess the validity of each of y'all comments about points raised by the other. Hijirii, what sources do you think should be used for this article, preferably ones in English that I can read for myself to assess any POV issues? And thanks for clarifying your point above. In general I'd agree with you about biased sources, but I'm not sure that those used here are actually biased, regardless of their origins. If you have anything substantial saying that they are, please provide them now. Thus far the article seems pretty neutral in tone, but I haven't gotten to Nanking yet. That seems the most likely place for any whitewashing, so is there anything tying Matsui more directly to the massacres?--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 04:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:12, 31 May 2015
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 18:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your interest.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning inconsistent style and sourcing problems (extended version)
|
---|
The spelling of Japanese authors' and publishers' names, including macrons, should conform to WP:MOS-JA, unless there is some specific reason why they do not already. 182.249.216.8 (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
|
Comments to all the above
- I do not read Japanese and so cannot evaluate any sources in that language.
- Incidentally, I can provide you with English language versions of the sources in question if you are interested in checking them.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree with your argument, Hijiri, that books and articles written by non-professional historians are inherently unreliable when used for a GA or better quality article. If they're unacceptably biased, prove it; the burden is indeed on you.
- I am very much not fond of the citation style used in this article as I also strongly prefer a short cite of author, page #, backed up by a bibliography with full citations. That said we must all respect WP:CITEVAR and CurtisNaito has been consistent in using his preferred method and need not make any changes to pass muster in this review.
- Matsuura, by comparison, is a professor of modern history whose book was published by a university press, and he is cited only 15 times; the last names him inline, but neither Hayasaka nor Hayase is named inline -- the reverse. I'm not following your argument here. What's wrong with how Matsuura is mentioned in the article?
Review
- No DABs, external links OK.
- What do you mean by this?CurtisNaito (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- File:Matsui on trial.jpg and File:Iwane Matsui.jpg need a US license as well as a Japanese one. I think that {{PD-1996}} will be acceptable. Done
- Link on first use, Kannon, bodhisattva, Second Sino-Japanese War, Nagoya, Russo-Japanese War, Greater Asia Association, major general, Jinan Done
- Put the abbreviation for the tribunal in parentheses after its first mention. Done
- After winning the battle Matsui succeeded in convincing Japan's high command to advance on the Chinese capital city of Nanking, though after capturing the city on December 13 troops under his command committed the notorious Nanking Massacre. Matsui retired from the army definitively in 1938, but after Japan's defeat in World War II he was charged with war crimes by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and was ultimately executed by hanging. These are rather long and convoluted. I suggest breaking them in half. Done
- Briefly tell the reader why his classmates were important; if they all became future general, say so. Done
- You do not need to have a citation for every sentence. If every fact in a paragraph is derived from the same source, then only a single cite at the end of the paragraph is necessary. Forex, cites 5 and 6 in the 3rd sentence of the first para of the main body can be deleted because they're both used in the last sentence of that paragraph. You've got cites splattered all over the article that can be profitably consolidated, so go through the article thoroughly and get rid of them. Done
- Is Sei Arao notable enough for an article? If so then redlink his name. Read through everything up to the Chinese war section. More later. DoneYes Sei Arao was a very influential army officer and should definitely have his own article.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree with your argument, Hijiri, that books and articles written by non-professional historians are inherently unreliable when used for a GA or better quality article. If they're unacceptably biased, prove it; the burden is indeed on you. I didn't say that, though: I said books and articles written by non-professional historians for right-leaning literary magazines whose titles contain "the TRUTH!!1!" should be taken with a grain of salt, and when 60-70% of the article is based on such sources is concerning. CurtisNaito has shown on numerous other articles that he doesn't know how to properly/critically read even good English-language sources, so I find it incredibly difficult to just take his word for it when he says "I didn't see any problem with it".
- I'm not following your argument here. What's wrong with how Matsuura is mentioned in the article? No problem at all with how Matsuura is mentioned in the article. I wish the whole article was written the way that one sentence was written.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- No actual evidence was ever provided in that discussion that I did not read the sources correctly. You were making accusations but not providing any proof for them.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for linking to the ANI thread which, if nothing else, shows that you two have a lot of bad blood between you, which greatly complicates my ability to assess the validity of each of y'all comments about points raised by the other. Hijirii, what sources do you think should be used for this article, preferably ones in English that I can read for myself to assess any POV issues? And thanks for clarifying your point above. In general I'd agree with you about biased sources, but I'm not sure that those used here are actually biased, regardless of their origins. If you have anything substantial saying that they are, please provide them now. Thus far the article seems pretty neutral in tone, but I haven't gotten to Nanking yet. That seems the most likely place for any whitewashing, so is there anything tying Matsui more directly to the massacres?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- No actual evidence was ever provided in that discussion that I did not read the sources correctly. You were making accusations but not providing any proof for them.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)